Chapter Nine: The Case for the Ingenious A

Table of Contents   Rewriting this chapter

 Chapter Nine: The Case for the Ingenious A

116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the New Varnum Hotel

Today, Thornton is a celebrated architect and his fame is not based solely on his Capitol design. Posthumously, Thornton had a stroke of luck. Historians credit him for designing houses built by John Tayloe III, General Washington and Thomas Law. Thornton never claimed that he designed those houses. No contemporary credited him for designing them. But no one else was credited for designing them. Attributing them to Thornton serves the agenda of posterity. As a 1925 New York Times' headline attested, legendary houses have a way have getting attached to legendary architects: “Octagon House Tablet to Exalt Architect; Special Marker to Be Placed on Celebrated Washington Dwelling, Designed by the Many-Sided Thornton, Who Planned the Original Capitol.” However, since his biographers suggest that Thornton concealed his design as a gentleman with wider interests should, the case has to be made that he was incapable making those designs.

Lovering’s work went unheralded until the dawn of the 20th century. In 1901, Allen Clark, a Washington lawyer, wrote a dual biography of Greenleaf and Law, but didn't mention who designed Law's house, which by that time had been recast as Varnum House hotel. However, Clark introduced Lovering into the conversation about who designed old houses still standing. He credited him for building Greenleaf's houses and designing the house on the southeast slope of Capitol Hill called The Maples for Nabob William Duncanson. In 1914, W. B. Bryan, a local "newspaper man," dug into the commissioners' records and found an order to lay out a building lot in Square 689 for Lovering. He noted that "If Mr. Lovering was the principal in this enterprise, and not merely the architect, he did not carry it out, as a house was built there in the latter part of 1799 by Thomas Law...." Bryan also cited Clark's research and described Lovering as combining "what was quite common then and for many years later the business of builder with the profession of architect."2 Not until 1976 did George McCue’s Octagon suggest that he was the superintending architect at the Octagon. In 1989, Ridout’s Building the Octagon left no doubt that he was, but Ridout had no doubt that Thornton designed the Octagon. Until 1989, all references to Lovering’s work were laudatory.

Then, in his 1995 discussion of Thornton as a residential architect, C. M. Harris, the editor of Thornton’s published papers, dismissed designs credited to Lovering as "conventional and unadventurous." That not only assured that Lovering was not credited for also designing the Octagon, it suggested another attainment for Thornton. Harris credited him for designing Law’s house because it had a “curvilinear element” that he perfected when he designed the Octagon. In 2018, Pamela Scott also credited Thornton for designing Law’s house, and also belittled Lovering’s work. In the spring of 1796, Lovering persuaded Robert Morris not to renegotiate a contract with Daniel Carroll that obliged the speculators to build 20 houses on Carroll’s lots by September or forfeit the lots and pay a $10,000 penalty. Lovering told Morris that Carroll had "a most rigid disposition and will be glad to take any advantage." He had been sued by Carroll for not paying for bricks that Greenleaf had promised to pay for. Morris and Nicholson knew that they had to do something to save their investment. Building the twenty houses would prove them better developers than Greenleaf and raise lot values throughout the city, especially if done with eclat. Vowing that “Mr. Carroll shall not have the forfeiture,” Morris and Nicholson promised Lovering enough money.

  
If the houses were only two stories and most shared party walls, Lovering thought they could be built by the end of September. Morris told him that they "must be easy and cheap to execute and at the same time agreeable to purchasers and tenants." Lovering also designed houses for South Capitol Street with storefront windows. Building began in late June on the square northwest of the intersection of South Capitol and N Streets SW. Despite Lovering being prostrated with a fever, his crew beat the deadline. Both Morris and Nicholson came to the city and hosted a barbecue for 200 to celebrate the accomplishment. Initially, even Carroll seemed satisfied.

 

In her architectural history of Capitol Hill, Pamela Scott is underwhelmed. She described Lovering as “a builder… who supervised work crews...”, but, she does rate one house as interesting. On September 26, their seeming success enabled Morris to sell a corner lot to a merchant named Edward Langley at 25 cents per square foot. He could pay the first two installments in goods and had 8 months to build. The contract for the sale had the proviso that Langley have his builders "conform to Lovering's design." This proviso was likely made and enforced to help the speculators if Carroll sued, which he soon did. Langley put the building up for sale in 1798. To advertise the sale, a surveyor brought to the city by Nicholson drew the building and its floor plan. In small print in the lower right hand corner of the advertisement, the surveyor wrote "Drawn by Nich. King July 14, 1798." Scott described it as “plan and elevation by Nicholas King” and other historians give King credit for designing the house. Scott rated the building as representing "the quality of houses and shops Carroll sought when he first contracted with Greenleaf." In another essay about a building on the other side of the city. Scott did imply that Lovering was more than a builder bossing workers. He drew a design for the Executive Offices. However, she disses him all the same for cheapening Hadfield’s design. Instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one." 

 

C. M. Harris did perform a service by transcribing and noting cross-outs in the drafts of letters and documents that pepper Thornton’s papers. Footnote 17 to the draft of his June 1798 letter to Secretary of State Pickering helps proved that Lovering designed Law’s house. Apropos Hadfield and the Executive offices, Thornton wrote that "the board applied to Mr. Lovering to calculate the expense of erecting such a building." After "Mr. Lovering," he wrote and then crossed out "an ingenious A." Did Thornton know something about Lovering's talent as an architect that architectural historians refuse to recognize?

It is unlikely that Thornton was thinking of Lovering’s designs for the South Capitol Street houses. He had never and never would comment on the Greenleaf’s Point houses. In January 1798, the commissioners asked Lovering to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter but not an "ingenious A." That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering. However, work did not begin on the house until April 1799. The lot was not surveyed until September 1798. Finally, Law had never shown any respect for Thornton as an architect and only recently became his friend. 

Law's initial dealings with Thornton had been unpleasant. As a board member, he voted not to give Law deeds unconditionally. In 1795, when Law needed an architect, he hired Hallet. In 1796, he urged the board to keep Hallet, “who was once flatteringly employed at the Capitol.” Since then, he had invented a machine "to raise stone" and the commissioners should help him to build it. Law likely credited Hallet for designing the Capitol. In 1797, he had cultivated Hadfield to keep track of work at the Capitol. He was enraged that Thornton spread a rumor that the General wanted his private residence on Peter's Hill near Georgetown. He also accused Scott and Thornton of not removing their office to Capitol to placate a developer who promised to build two three story houses if they did. Then after meeting President Adams, Law realized that he had no interest in the city. He could no longer go over the heads of the commissioners. Hence, he looked to Thornton not as an architect, but as the most congenial and accessible commissioner. Thornton coveted a friendship with Law because thanks to his marriage he was part of the General's family with easy entree to Mount Vernon. Indeed, on May 24, the Thorntons joined the Washingtons for dinner with the Laws in the their in the square just east of Square 689. On June 24, the weekend Thornton wrote his draft to Pickering, the Thorntons had tea with the Laws. If Law already had Lovering's design in hand, he didn't need Thornton to design it, but he did need Commissioner Thornton to approve how Lovering addressed the problem of have walls parallel streets intersecting at an acute angle.

 

 

 Evidently, the rhetorician realized that the secretary of state might misinterpret that aside as a complement relating to Lovering's plain Executive office design.

Is there evidence that Law had a design in hand on June 24 two and a half months before the lot was surveyed? Law had been building houses up New Jersey Avenue since 1796. He also financed houses built by others on his lots which, as a judge would later rule, also satisfied his contract’s building clause. His first spurt of building was aimed at profiting from the economic boom on Greenleaf’s Point that never came. Beginning in 1798, he aimed at providing housing for congressman and for himself near the Capitol. On May 4, he wrote to the General: “Pardon the liberty I take in suggesting to you how much your building one house at this Crisis would ensure the rapid rise of the City by doing away doubts—The workmen now build on the cheapest terms, it is charity to employ them & materials are low &if you will honor me by accepting of a Lot any where near the Seat of Congress & by permitting me to raise 5,000 Ds. till it is convenient to You to advance the money I shall be very happy.” That the same man who site unseen paid Greenleat $180,000 to become proprietor now needed to raise $5,000 likely gave the General pause and he turned down the offer. In most ways Law was still a wealthy man but trusting that his building would eventually turn a profit he had over extended himself. He was short of cash. So was Lovering.
    In October 1797, Lovering hung out his shingle, so to speak. Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria newspapers, advertised his skills as “Architect, Surveyor and Builder and c." including "to design and make drawings, plans and estimates..." In his Alexandria notice, he added to the headline "(From London)." Was he trying to attract Law's attention?However, Lovering’s advertisement also excited his and the speculators’ creditors. In 1796, when he tried to pay for building supplies with Nicholson’s checks, they bounced leaving Lovering was liable for the debt. In January 1798, Nicholson’s creditors had Lovering arrested for nonpayment. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. Lovering coped by having control of what remained of the speculators’ building materials and knowing a family in Maryland who could care for his five year old daughter. When his grown son from England arrived, he coped with that too. No one could sue him.

Just as Thornton did, Lovering made a good first impression. They differed in that Thornton charmed by being so impressionable and Lovering charmed by behaving as a professional architect should. In 1801, another client described how Lovering designed and contracted to build houses. In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In his letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering. Stier's letters explained how Lovering tried to win a client. He came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600.…” In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering no credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.

But in 1798, Lovering’s smooth ways of soliciting work were stymied by the commissioners’ formality. On May 7, they used Lovering’s design for the Executive Office to solicit bids from builders. Lovering’s was the third lowest. As he built what would be the Treasury department, the contractor who won realized he miscalculated and the board gave him an extra $2,000. Except for what Thornton crossed out in the draft of his letter to Pickering, there is no evidence that in June, Lovering salved his wounds by accepting Law’s challenge. But the house Lovering built for Law stood as evidence that he made up for the General not building a house in the same square. But what he had built would be the catalyzing keystone for two rows of houses going along C Street and up New Jersey Avenue.

Law was an otherwise busy man and he knew that he needed an architect familiar with row houses in big cities and how the design of one house can make the completion of neighboring houses seem inevitable.  

On July 10, 1798, Lovering asked them to apply their payment for his Executive office design as down payment on Lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on the northwest corner of that intersection. That suggests that Law had Lovering's design by July 10.

 Lovering might have started working on Law’s design around June 12. Of course, that Thornton reacted positively to an eccentric floor plan on June 24 doesn’t necessarily prove that it was Lovering design. It might have been Law’s idea drawn by Lovering, but it certainly wasn’t Thornton’s idea. Lovering had a misunderstanding with the commissioners over payment for his lot. He still had one more payment to make to the board and he asked the board that future payments for his Executive Office design be used to cover it. The board claimed it never said it would pay him more than $300.  At that moment Lovering's reputation was in tatters because he was broke and facing law suits from the speculators’ creditors. He had signed the checks to suppliers that Morris and Nicholson failed to cover as promised. Out of pity, the commissioners offered to let him relinquish the lot and take $300 in cash that he desperately needed. He refused and reminded them "my situation after long residence in this city and after having superintended the construction of two-thirds of the houses in the city entitles me to your consideration for facilities of every kind, as my Misfortune originates in being over zealous and becoming security for my employers and not in any misconduct of my own." He made a good case but ruined it by impugning Thornton in a way that proves that Thornton did not design Law’s house: “I devoted Chearfully my time and Attention to the Offices and have saved you at least 10,000 in particularizing the Building & c. and tho it would be natural for you Gentlemen unacquainted with the trouble of architectural details to under estimate my Services.…”

Of course, in regards to designing Law’s house, what matters is how Law estimated Lovering’s services. Given that Law received deeds on condition that he build 166 houses, he likely noticed the most proficient architect/builder in the city. Then again, Law scheduled building only one house in 1799. But it would be the catalyzing keystone for two rows of houses going along C Street and up New Jersey Avenue. Law needed an architect familiar with row houses in big cities and how the design of one house can make the completion of neighboring houses seem inevitable. In October 1797, Lovering hung out his shingle, so to speak in Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria newspapers, advertising his skills as “Architect, Surveyor and Builder and c." including "to design and make drawings, plans and estimates..." In his Alexandria notice, he added to the headline "(From London)." Was he trying to attract Law's attention? 

That there is no letter or document Law wrote that identified his architect raises a suspicion that in 1797, Law was looking for a draftsman and builder who could build a house he already had in mind. Oval rooms became fashionable in late 18th century Britain and France. New country seats had them. In 1786, while on a prolonged stay in England, William Hamilton sent instructions on how to build Woodlands, then outside Philadelphia but now in that city's Fairmount Park. His mansion would have two notable oval rooms, a parlor and dining room. Another mansion now in the park, Lemon Hill, which was built in 1800, also has oval rooms. An architectural historian notes "its use of ovals and circular spaces suggests a French influence." However, putting oval rooms in a confined townhouse, as opposed to a rambling country house or a monumental building like the Capitol or President's House, would be more challenging.

 

The only sketch of Law's floor plan is in a letter Benjamin Latrobe wrote to the gentleman who bought the house from Law in 1815. The buyer wanted to upgrade the heating system. Latrobe suggested "a handsome grate" for the principal oval room, an oval marked "B" in his sketch. The ballroom in Latrobe's sketch was in the next door house that Law financed but another man contracted to have built. Through that arrangement, a judge would give Law credit toward fulfilling his requirement to build 166 houses.(6)

 

In an April 9, 1800, letter to Greenleaf, Law delighted in describing his house: “on the ground floor there is a handsome oval room 32 by 24 and a room adjoining 20 by 28 - the oval room is so handsomely furnished that I wish to leave the eagle round glasses, carpet and couches in them as they are suited to the room - above stairs is a dressing room and a bedroom 21 by 20 - a center room with a fireplace about 17 by thirteen, an oval room 30 by 25 - and a room 20 by 11 with a fireplace - the same upstairs - say 8 bed rooms or 7 bedrooms and an oval sitting room….” To be sure, Thornton impressed many with his grand oval vestibule "about 114 feet in diameter" that might be built in the years ahead. Actually, excitement for Lovering room is easier to understand. In 1794, Lovering squeezed a 32 foot long room into one of Greenleaf's townhouse. Mr. Henry, Greenleaf’s “secretaire economic,” was so impressed that he thought the townhouse should be a hotel. Law's largest room was 32 feet long and elliptical.

Law’s passion were world peace, reformation of the monetary system to afford capital to the enterprising and relief for the poor, and poetry. He did not have a hand for drawing. There is a contract that proves that he didn’t design his three story house with three oval rooms of varying size. Although undated and not widely known, the contract for building Law’s largest house signed by Law and Lovering is extant. Archivists mislabeled the eleven page document as being written "circa 1794," so it escaped the scrutiny of researchers interested in what Law was planning to build in 1798. The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found but they were likely Lovering's designs. The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs.

When going over the lot with the surveyor, Lovering saw that due to the sloping ground the house needed a story under the kitchen to keep the house level. Law wrote an addendum to the contract that “Mr. Lovering will have an additional story to make…,” and stipulated that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." It designated Hoban and another builder to “arbitrate on any points of dispute.” There was no mention of Thornton. Law was so excited by the fan shaped kitchen Lovering would design that he sketched it in his letter to Greenleaf.

 

But in the letter, he didn’t give Lovering any credit for designing it. There was a downside to contracting with Lovering. He was insolvent and pursued by Nicholson’s creditors. Money put in his hands was attachable. Credit given to his genius was debatable if not laughable. The Romantic Era which lionized the starving artist had not arrived. However, Law was also running out of money and 18th century poets did have sympathy for the poor. Law accepted Lovering’s lot in Square 691 as security. For his two houses, the General would require $4,000 pledged as security. Law’s also authorized that Lovering be paid by his “prices for stone, mortar and hiring labor.” Law also agreed to pay when building materials were delivered and work done. Lovering had become adept at selling excess building materials to others. That was how he got involved with The Maples that Hallet likely designed and built for the other Nabob. Law also agreed to have a sufficient reserve of money “to secure the accomplishment of the contract.” Lovering had learned to be extra careful after working for Greenleaf, Morris and Nicholson.

Those adjustments were private. Lovering’s plight was public knowledge. Letters he wrote to Nicholson chronicle how he suffered because of that. He had been arrested for nonpayment. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. That's why he needed the commissioners' help. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. The alternative was going to jail. To end the harassment, Lovering decided to seek protection under Maryland's Insolvency Act. If granted, he could work without the money that passed through his hands being attached by creditors, but then creditors could take what property he had. To get protection, he had to advertise his intentions. Doing that, he explained to Nicholson, "has been a great injury to me for I should have had several buildings.…" A friend of Nicholson's warned the speculator of the possible loss of “a man of abilities." Nicholson could do nothing. Work would not begin on Law’s house until the spring. Lovering turned to politicians for help.

 
When Nicholson fled the city to avoid creditors, Lovering followed. He liked the Welshman who had ruined him. Although he never paid a salary, he gave Lovering $5 a day for marking trees for lumber, loaned his carriage when Lovering had to bury his wife and engaged Lovering’s fantasies when they both planned how to build 166 houses in the city. While Lovering didn’t get any more handouts in Philadelphia, he did meet the trustees representing the interests of creditors of all three speculators who owed them upwards of $12 million, two-thirds of that attributed to Nicholson. The trustees hoped to recoup much of the debt by selling the speculators’ federal city property and lots. Lovering knew the worth of the former better than anyone else.

The five trustees in Philadelphia hired William Hammond Dorsey as their attorney in Georgetown. He was so sanguine about the likelihood of selling federal city property that he asked the trustees for a $2,000 retainer. Lovering was likely the source of his optimism. Dorsey also represented Georgetown in the Maryland Senate, and likely was one of the several legislators helping Lovering to get insolvency protection. Before Dorsey and his colleagues left Annapolis at the end of the 1798 session, they passed a bill that did that. However, Lovering had to prove he was a citizen of Maryland to the chancellor, the state’s top legal officer. In 1799, the federal city was still legally in Maryland. When Lovering appeared for what he expected to be pro forma approval, his creditors complained that his bookkeeping was faulty. The chancellor postponed making a decision. Lovering was still optimistic and begged Nicholson not to think that his once again making money relieved the speculators from paying him his due. Land in Tennessee would do fine. He could sell it in England. That happy month of February was likely when he tried to get a contract with Tayloe.

 

A January 1799 letter from the General to Tayloe provoked the first documentary evidence that Tayloe planned to build a house. The General announced what was already in the newspapers. The Senate confirmed his nomination to be one of two majors in the dragoons in the Provisional Army that President Adams asked the General to raise to deter French aggression. Then he got to the point. He recalled that in late 1797, Tayloe had expressed interest in buying "Jack Asses when I shd be disposed to part with any." The General offered him "three for $800, and one for $300." He added that "Ready money would be very convenient to me, as my buildings in the City call for it...."  In his reply sent on February 10, Tayloe worried that becoming an officer would force him to vacate his seat in the Virginia senate. He added that "respecting the Jack," his father-in-law gave him "a very fine one—consequently my wants on that head [are] supplied—Beside this—I am anxious to appropriate every shilling I can raise—towards the improvements I contemplate putting up in the F. City.” He thought he was destined him for a seat in congress. But he would not run in the upcoming April 1799 election. He intimated to the General that he would run in 1801 and that meant he did not need a house in the federal city until December 1801. The General replied promptly and assured him that he need not accept the commission until the war actually started. He didn't mention their houses, or Thornton who had just spent two nights at Mount Vernon. 

Tayloe’s face was very familiar in Annapolis where he dominated Annapolis Jockey Club at the beginning of the social season and held is own at the balls at the end of his social season. His wife had been an Annapolis belle. On their way to and from, they were familiar faces in Georgetown. But the winter of 1799-1800 was unusual for the Tayloes.  After his politicking in Richmond, where “with an infinity of fatigue,” he became a state senator, in late January, the Tayloes had their third child. Tayloe joined his wife during her 45 day confinement at Mount Airy. That done, in March he headed north to see the General and the secretary of war in Philadelphia. Then he got ill on the road and returned to Mount Airy. He could not discuss his house plans with architects in Georgetown or the federal city.

Lovering documented the existence of a contract for Tayloe’s house on March 9, 1799. He wrote to Nicholson: “I shall not be able to get any business at this place owing to being insolved. I could have had a Building to do upon a contract close to fifteen thousand dollars for a Gentleman in Virginia but could get no security therefore have lost it and I hope and trust you will do something for me.” That doesn’t prove that Lovering had drawn a design for the house. But there had to be some semblance of a design before a contract can be drawn up that one could put a price tag on. Vexed about every shilling, it seems that Tayloe would be careful that regard.

 

The contract Tayloe eventually signed was not like the contract the General signed with Blagden or Law signed with Lovering. In 1869, according to a Washington newspaper, William Henry Tayloe shared information about the Octagon with the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District. He noted that “the contract was made with William H. Dorsey." That he was known to Thornton professionally and socially is well documented. But he also had a relationship with Lovering to whom he would pay $901.60, 7 % of the contracted price, to be the superintending architect for Tayloe’s house. Lovering had certainly met Dorsey months before he lost the contract for the house. He mentioned him in a December 4 letter to Nicholson.

There is evidence that Tayloe and Dorsey pulled strings so that Lovering could superintend construction of the house. He had lost the contract on Tayloe's house because he could not put up security. That Dorsey drew up a contract to be signed by himself and Tayloe was likely their way of relieving Lovering, who supplied all the specifications in the contract, from having to put up security. Lovering would advise but Dorsey would handle all the money. But even that could be stymied by Lovering’s creditors.

On April 10, the new sheriff notified Lovering that his creditors had writs that would force the seizure of all his property the following day, and put a notice in the newspapers warning people not to do business with Lovering. Because court was in session at the county seat in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, there were no lawyers in town to help Lovering. Someone advised him to hurry to Annapolis and see the Chancellor. Lovering lacked money for the trip. He got it from Thomas Law. In Annapolis, Lovering saw the Chancellor, who quashed the writs. This is such a fairy tale ending to Lovering's crisis that one has to suspect the fine hand of a superior power. Indeed, in November, the legislature had elected Benjamin Ogle governor. He was Tayloe's father-in-law. Lovering had the joy of writing to Nicholson about the reaction of their creditors when Lovering showed them the Chancellor's order: “You would have been pleased to see their chagrin." However, beaten down so long, Lovering evidently didn't anticipate that he would soon have three jobs. In an April 22 letter to Nicholson, Lovering sounded like a man with no hope: “I have nothing to do here and shall be soon be on my way to Philadelphia, as I now am down to the last shilling without any hope of getting any relief,...”

Then just three days after his morose letter to Nicholson, Lovering landed on his feet. Law wrote to the General that “your corner stone is to be laid today,” and he would sign the contract for his house. Maryland legislators arranged another job for Lovering. They had authorized a tax levy for repairs to or replacement of the Prince George's County Courthouse in Upper Marlboro. On April 26, the justices of the Levy Court opted for a new courthouse and asked "William Lovering of the City of Washington Architect, to draft a plan thereof...." He would receive $400 for his design and construction of the building would be under his "Direction and Inspection."

On April 27, Thornton jotted down in a notebook where he occasionally kept track of his activities that he "set out Mr. Tayloe's lot." The official process of setting out a lot required a representative of the board in consultation with the builder and/or property owner to ascertain that the design conformed to building regulations. Thornton didn't note who represented Tayloe. It was likely Lovering. Tayloe wasn't there. He had returned to Mount Airy for the crucial Virginia elections. But, obviously, Thornton wanted to be there. Clifden and Driver would arrive in Norfolk in November 1799. The Tortola payout usually came at the beginning of the year and was credited to Thornton’s London account. His cousin Pickering had ample time to buy horses in the spring to be shipped for arrival in the fall. When he set out Tayloe’s lot, Thornton might have been doing Tayloe a favor to be repaid by training Driver. Whether a curvilinear front could be parallel to intersecting straight streets was a question that required special understanding from the commissioners' representative. Law's design had gotten a pass, but Tayloe's design was different. The front wall with a projecting oval had several feet of flat wall on either side of the bow. That part of the wall did not parallel the nearby streets. It marked a hypotenuse to the angled intersection. Offering a house design is a dangerous favor to give. New houses can be costly and problematical, but bending a rule?

 
Thornton, Dorsey and Tayloe never credited Lovering for designing the house, and Lovering also never claimed that he did. However, in May 1800, Lovering owned the design for Law’s and Tayloe’s houses in a newspaper advertisement: "William Lovering, Architect and General Builder – Begs leave to inform his friends and the public, that he has removed from the City of Washington to Gay Street, the next street above the Union Tavern in Georgetown, where he plans to estimate all manner of building, either with materials and labor, or labor only. Specimens of buildings suitable for the obtuse or acute angles of the streets of the City of Washington, may be seen at his home”

In Building the Octagon, Ridout quotes the ad and characterizes it as a mere builder taking advantage of what he was learning while building a house designed by a genius: "Supervising architect William Lovering attempted to capitalize on his experience with the unorthodox plan of the Octagon by soliciting other commissions for the eccentrically shaped lots so common in Washington." However, Lovering's ad did not merely offer "his experience." He offered to share "specimens of buildings," that is, plans and elevations to illustrate what could be built on angled lots. He was trying to get work based on his experience as a designer, not merely on his experience as a builder. Indeed, assuming that he wooed Tayloe and Law just as he would woo Stier, then there were at least six floor plans that were extant suitable for a house to face an intersection that formed an acute angle, one of them could have wound up as the “thoughtful” design now in Thornton’s papers. 

 

Could Lovering have been more explicit? In 1807, master carpenter Andrew McDonald advertised his services with this reminder. He had "finished the buildings on Rock Hill, near Georgetown, for the late Gustavus Scott, esq...; and also finished that elegant building belonging to Colonel John Tayloe..." So, why didn't Lovering associate his name with Tayloe's house? Lovering probably decided that he could not publicly claim his designs because that would diminish the glory of house owners like Tayloe, Law and Stier. Instead, he had to rely on their good word, which he probably never heard. On June 14, 1801, Tayloe wrote to Lovering: "my Object is to be done with the building as quickly as I can with the least trouble and vexation - for the expense of it already alarms me to death when I think of it." Dorsey calculated that the project cost $28,476.82 well over the contract price. That should temper modern claims that it was "constructed with enslaved labor." By the way, in that letter Tayloe demanded that McDonald be fired. Stier also became vexed at Lovering because of delays in building his house. In a letter to his son, Stier called Lovering a "blockhead."

In his future advertisements, Lovering did not reveal what he had designed or built. In an April 1801 ad, he claimed that he had "been in the practice of drawing for and superintending great part of the buildings in the City of Washington and vicinity." But he didn't say which ones. In an 1804 ad, he announced that he had relocated to Alexandria "where he Draws, Designs, and makes estimates of all manner of Buildings and also MEASURES AND VALUES all the different work connected to the building art." He was ready to "contract for any building and complete the same, from a palace to a cottage, which will be executed in the most masterly and economic style." He claimed he had "long experience" but didn't list any houses he designed or built. In 1809, he placed an ad in Baltimore, which exuded a complete command of his profession: "Begs leave to inform the gentlemen of Baltimore and its environs, that they may be supplied with plans, elevations and sections of any building intended to be erected, with the estimates of the different work particularized in a manner in which it is impossible for any dispute to arise, and gives instructions to the different workmen that they have no occasion to make any inquiry during the execution of the building." He also offered to build and added: "his abilities may be known by resorting to different works which he has executed..." He mastered his profession and left his mark on houses throughout the federal city then he moved on to Philadelphia and back to Baltimore where he died in 1813. He was likely over 60 years old. He was survived by his third wife, a Mrs. White, who he married in Georgetown in December 1799. After her husband’s death, she moved in with his daughter after she married Dr. John Brereton, also a noted Washington horticulturalist. Lovering’s son from his first marriage, Richard Lovering, joined his father at the climax of his financial woes, and chose to make his career in India.  

Lovering’s modern reputation for architectural design suffers because he built too many houses. He was also the wrong type of man that architects in the modern era wanted to honor. A man trained as a carpenter who the exigencies of the moment forced into making memorable designs could not compare to Dr. William Thornton M. D. It was better for their purposes to honor a talented amateur who had never built anything. Heralding him proved the supremacy of design over engineering. It was also presumed that heralding him echoed the General who chose Thornton to design the Capitol and then the two houses he built on Capitol Hill. But, Thornton didn’t design those two houses. The saga of the General’s houses has nothing to do with Tayloe’s house and much to do with Thornton’s frustration about not being recognized for his Capitol design.
    

 

Go to Chapter 10

1. 

2. Brown, Glenn 1896, "Dr. William Thornton, Architect." Architectural Record, 1896 , Vol. VI, July-September (page 53ff) pdf.; Clark, Allen Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City; W. H. Bryan, History of the National Capitol, vol. 1 pp. 278-9, 311, 315-6 

3. Ridout  Building the Octagon, p. 76; Harris, Papers of William Thornton, p. 588; 

4. Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..."   of the house for Thomas Law built on Square 689 

5. Corosino, Catherine Ann, The Woodlands: Documentation of an American Interior, Thesis, U. of Penn, 1997 p. 128; Helpern, Martha, “Henry Pratt’s Account for Lemon Hill,” Antiques and Fine Arts Magazine on-line, Pratt was one of the trustees involved with the Greenleaf’s Point properties and likely knew Lovering ; Smith, Ryan, Robert Morris's Folly: The Architectural and Financial Failures of an American Founder, 2014, pp. 93, 169.

6. Scott, Pamela with Charles Carroll Carter and William DiGiacomantonio, Creating Capitol Hill: Place Proprietors, and Peoples. United States Capitol Historical Society, Washington, D.C., 2018; Pratt v. Law, No. 659, , US Supreme Court, 9 Cranch 456 pp. 779ff

7. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams Family Papers; 

8. Alexandria Advertiser  9 October 1797, p. 4; Appleton to Henry, 3 & 9 February 1795; Cranch to his father 25 November 1794; Edward Law became Lord Ellenbrough in1802

9. Law to GW 6 October 1796 footnote 7.& 4 February 1797 & 8 February 1797 & 27 December 1797.

10. AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83. 

11. WT to Pickering 23-25 June 1798 draft; Scott, Pamela, "A Communication Between the Offices: Designing the Executive Office Building 1791-1800." White House Historical Association; Lovering to commrs., June 21, 1798; commrs. proceedings June 20, 1798;Lovering to commrs., January 9, 1798, commrs. records.; proceedings 12 January 1798;

12. Lovering to Commissioners, 10 July, Commrs. records.

13. Margaret Law Callcott, editor, Mistress of Riverdale, pp. 28-9;

14.  Op. cit , "Particular description..." ; WT to Law 1 August 1799 Harris pp. 504-5

15.  Lovering to Commrs. 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.

16. Lovering to Nicholson 4 December 1798; Samuel Ward to Nicholson, August 31, 1798.

17. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams papers; GW diary 10 November 1799; Commrs to Adams, 21 November 1799; White to Adams 13 December 1799 ( the editors of these on-line papers transcribed "Taylor" but the letter clearly reads "Tayloe;") 

18. Greenleaf and Law, p. 250; Diary pp. 216, 222

19. Mrs. Thornton's Diary p. 94; Scott, Creating Capitol Hill, p. 129; Harris p. 586.

20. WT to Fothergill, 10 October 1797, Harris pp. 424-27; Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..." ; 

21. Diary p. 112; National Intelligencer  5 January 1801, "Conrad and McMunn" ad, p. 4

22. WT to Law 9 March 1801, Harris pp. 553-4